Porsche 911 UK Enthusiasts Online Community Discussion Forum GB

Welcome to the @Porsche911UK website. Register a free account today to become a member! Sign up is quick and easy, then you can view, participate in topics and posts across the site that covers all things Porsche.

Already registered and looking to recovery your account, select 'login in' and then the 'forget your password' option.

IMS data collection update - 132 cars (Page 3)

Alex

Nordschleife
Joined
6 Mar 2014
Messages
22,161
Just been looking at the data collected so far and thrown a couple of graphs together for folk to look at.

Here's a couple of bar charts showing which engines and models have sustained a failure:

Total number of failures - 9.8%
of which 3.4 - 0% and 3.6 - 13.3%
of which all X51 - 0%, C2 - 16.6% and C4S - 14.81%

failure%20distribution_zps358fe14b.jpg


Looking at the 6 failures reported I've done a graph displaying their mileage over time and 3 points - registered date, Failure date and data inputted date.

Notice how 5 of the 6 failures were all registered within a 12 month period and out of those, 3 of them failed within a few weeks of each other 9 years later.
Last reported failure was July 2014 and then June 2013 before that.

failure%20graph_zpsdedfzj4d.jpg


I'll do any updates in this post rather than the sticky so it doesn't get too messy in that post.

Once again, thank you to everybody involved. :thumbs:
 
keep up the good work :thumb:
 
Thanks for doing the analysis Alex. I'm still considering getting into an early car before prices begin to rise.

I suspect the % failure rate may be higher than the true norm for reasons discussed in the original thread.

Hopefully more data will continue to be added as this should increase the accuracy.

The breakdown between models is really interesting. Seems that some of the theories (such as early 3.4's are less prone to this kind of failure) are borne out in the sample.

Are you thinking of doing a level-headed bore score survey once this is completed? Might throw up some interesting patterns too? You can never have too much information and nice to see these issues discussed in a sensible way.
 
Is the best bet a 3.4 X51 (with LTT)?

I only ask as I have an option on one :bandit:
 
Bore-score is next on my list :thumb:
 
Well done.

On Bore Score, what are the symptoms? How would you know you had it?
 
GT4 said:
Is the best bet a 3.4 X51 (with LTT)?

I only ask as I have an option on one :bandit:

Make sure you check out previous owners :wink:
 
Niall996 said:
Well done.

On Bore Score, what are the symptoms? How would you know you had it?

Excessive oil consumption and (blue) smokey exhaust - with associated sooty tailpipe.
 
Great work. The only actual analysis I've seen despite the endless 'discussions'.
 
Very interesting results.. so most seem to be at quite low mileage? My new engine is coming upto 40k odd now. Fingers, toes, legs and arms crossed :lol:
 
Will be interesting to see how many have changed the bearing due to paranoia rather than need?
 
I'll post some info over the weekend on replacements.
 
Chris_in_the_UK said:
Will be interesting to see how many have changed the bearing due to paranoia rather than need?

Difficult to prove that one, though. You could look at it the other way and it might be interesting to see if any bearings that have been changed consequently failed? If not (or the failure rate is significantly lower), it's difficult to say that changing is necessarily a bad thing, if the result is a lower failure rate and less paranoia? However, I suspect the current sample size is not big enough to be conclusive one way or the other.
 

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
124,540
Messages
1,441,276
Members
48,949
Latest member
alanjf
Back
Top